William Sterndale Bennett 1816-1875

[giles.enders]

I have just emailed Barry Sterndale-Bennett to ask if he knows where it is. 

[Dr Gradus]

That is very much appreciated. Thank you.

[giles.enders]

I understand that the MS is in private ownership and not available for performance.  It is possibly one his best orchestral pieces.

[Gareth Vaughan]

The same person who has the MS of piano concerto No. 6, I suppose. I can feel my blood pressure rising!

[Mark Thomas]

A rhetorical question, I know, but why do people do this? It makes no sense. You'd think that a recording, or even just a performance, would enhance the MS's value, wouldn't you?

[Dr Gradus]

I am by trade a violinist. I recently purchased a remarkably fine bow. The dealer who sold it to me let it go with some reluctance because although he is a friend, and respects my playing, the bow was in such perfect condition that he was quite uncomfortable with its being used. Its existence for him was enough. I guess this situation is similar.

I will turn my attentions to other works by WSB instead. I thank those on this forum for their efforts in tracing things this far.

[Gareth Vaughan]

...the bow was in such perfect condition that he was quite uncomfortable with its being used. Its existence for him was enough. I guess this situation is similar.

I very much doubt it. Call me cynical but I think MONEY is at the bottom of this "dog in the manger" attitude. With music the notes on the page are not the finished article. They are a statement of intent. (The same is true of a play.) The finished article is the performance - and every one will be different. Some will come closer than others to realizing the composer's intention, and some may offer insights of which even the composer might be unaware - and we can all instance composers who made notable changes to their works after hearing performances. Deliberately refusing to allow a piece of music to be performed is the same as shutting a visual work of art (like a painting or a sculpture) in a box so that nobody can see it.  It also shows a vast contempt for the creator of the work of art. Music is written to be heard. That is all. If it is not heard it might as well not exist.

[jerfilm]

Amen, Gareth.  You hit the nail on the proverbial head.  It's a contemptible  insult to the composer. 

I have the same feeling about film archives who won't release films from the silent era to be captured on digital media.   "It's mine and if you wanna see it, you come to my house......"   Sad that such folks are entrusted with these precious relics....

Jerry

[Jimfin]

I sometimes feel this way about the treasures the BBC has and doesn't release publicly (and they have been known to destroy a lot too, though I think that was in the past).

[Jonathan]

I also agree with you Gareth, there is one work in particular by Liszt which is in a collection in the Middle East which I would really, really like to see recorded but the person who bought it refuses to let it be studied.  What's the point - Liszt would certainly have played it in public in the 1830s and 40s and so I see little point in restriciting it to a small circle of individuals.  I have the auction catalogue in which it was advertised and it reproduces tantalising exerpts from the work which makes me really interested to see what the rest of it is like.  In theory, if this individual would allow it to be studied and recorded, the value of the manuscript is likely to increase so it's stupid to keep it under wraps forever.

Sorry, this sort of thing really gets my goat.   

[FBerwald]

I don't know if this is a pointless quire.... but are there legal options?

[Amphissa]

Why is this any different from a wealthy person buying art masterpieces that have never been photographed or exhibited and hanging them on the walls of his own home, never to be seen by the public or even researchers?

Isn't that the whole point of getting rich -- so one can have "nice things" that re-affirm one's own greatness, stroking one's own ego? And isn't a part of that whole scene the clamor of the unwashed peasants bemoaning that they can't benefit from those "nice things" themselves?

My point is, sometimes it is not about the money, but about the power and control and self-adulation that comes with ownership, just knowing "I'm the only one" who can ever enjoy this.

I can't say that I really grok that mentality, but we see it in evidence all the time, and not identifying with it probably explains why I'm not rich. 

[Gareth Vaughan]

My point is, sometimes it is not about the money, but about the power and control and self-adulation that comes with ownership, just knowing "I'm the only one" who can ever enjoy this.

But they can't enjoy it because it is not performed. If you have a piece of visual art you can enjoy it. In the case of music the finished work of art is not the MS but the performance. If they allowed it to be performed, they could still have the kudos of being the only one with the original MS - there are plenty of collectors of MSS, literary and musical. I think it would be nice to own an original MS of a Jane Austen novel, for instance, but were I lucky enough to do so I would not be depriving the rest of the world from enjoying the novel. Nor would its value be diminished by the fact that the text of the novel was available to everyone.

[Amphissa]

Try to convince the owner -- if you can ever get past the gate. It's owning and keeping away from others that feeds the self-adulation. Especially with music, if you give it to the world to be performed and recorded, you no longer own it.

I'm not justifying this. It is a mentality I can't really connect with. But I think it is a real phenomenon.

[Gareth Vaughan]

How sick!